What I found interesting about this week’s material was Dawson’s notion of revolution being a claim of ownership on history. In most situations, people discuss revolution in relation to specific themes such as discontent of a governmental regime or economic inequality, the concept of revolution being an attempt to generate societal change with the intent of creating a ‘better’ society (though what is defined as better is highly subjective). However, while all of these ideas definitely have connections to many particular revolutions, I think there are also abstract and subtle nuances that help fuel and sustain revolutions beyond the archetypal circumstances. Structural causes and triggering events like oppression and governmental violence (respectively) obviously are what starts revolutions, but what sustains them are the changes in the ways in which people think. People fight for ideas and values, how they believe society should be organized. Dawson’s exploration of revolution as a claim of ownership on history discusses how in order to change the conditions of the present, the ideas that construct the past (or what’s known as history) need to be reshaped. I agree with Dawson’s proposal as throughout this course we’ve looked at Latin America as an abstraction rather than as something that is tangible. I think that this idea continues to perpetuate as we gain a deeper understanding of Latin America – that practically nothing in it is ever completely concrete.
Another thing I found interesting about this week are how figures of revolution are often celebrated to the point in which they pretty much become legend. Though these people obviously have held large roles as leaders within the revolution, the pedestal they are put on after they become martyrs appear to far exceed the merit their actions. A quote that really struck me in Dawson’s attempt to explain this phenomenon is that these individuals “make good symbols because they did not live long enough to disappoint”. Dawson argues that in many cases of revolution, individuals that are glorified for the part they played in the revolution but survive the revolution often fall from grace later on in their lives whereas those who are praised but killed become icons simply because they died before peoples favour for them ran out/they did something to invoke the wrath of the public.
A question I would like to pose for this week’s discussion is how competing factions within the revolution used and manipulated the media (public documents, internet, postcards, art, etc.) in their favour; if at all?
Thank you for reading!
I definitley agree with your inerpretation of that Dawson’s idea of revolution as a claim of ownership on history. By revolting, people attempt to change the narrative of history by influencing the present to embody their idels.
I think the extent of manipulation in the media depended on the specific faction’s power during the revolution. The Zapatistas and Villa’s followers tended to be of a lower social status and thus would not have had much ability to change the media . Granted, if they had supporters in high places, they would have had some positive representation in the media, but I think that it would have been rare for them to have admirers in higher ranks.
I think when discussing the use and manipulation of media in the revolution, it is important to consider what access the revolution had to mass media at the time. For instance, if the government controls newspaper publications and whatnot, then it would be difficult to spread the word of the revolution through those means. I think revolutions are best spread through speeches and talks directly to the people in order to convince them of a new regime, it is also harder to control word-of-mouth type spread of information by the current regime.